Lead Exposure Elimination Project (LEEP) drives effective policies to eliminate lead poisoning across the globe. Its current focus is on ending the sale and manufacture of lead paint worldwide.
Cause area: Improving human wellbeing
An estimated 815 million children — one in three — around the globe have dangerous levels of lead in their bloodstreams, which can hinder their cognitive development and limit their future potential. 94% of these children are in low- and middle-income countries. In addition, adverse health effects related to lead poisoning account for 1% of the global disease burden, including causing 1 million premature deaths annually.
LEEP’s mission is to eliminate childhood lead poisoning and improve the health, wellbeing, and potential of children worldwide. Its paint programmes aim to end the market availability of lead paint with a five-step approach:
In the past two years, LEEP has:
If progress continues as expected, LEEP estimates that these programmes will reduce lead poisoning in approximately 3 million children.
We previously included LEEP as one of our recommended charities based on Founders Pledge’s extensive evaluation highlighting its cost-effectiveness. Founders Pledge found that:
Other indicators of LEEP’s effectiveness include:
We’ve since updated our recommendations to reflect only organisations recommended by evaluators we’ve looked into as part of our 2023 evaluator investigations; while we expect to soon look into Founders Pledge as part of this more in-depth evaluator research, we haven’t yet. As such, we don't currently include LEEP as one of our recommended programs but you can still donate to it via our donation platform.
Please note that GWWC does not evaluate individual charities. Our recommendations are based on the research of third-party, impact-focused charity evaluators our research team has found to be particularly well-suited to help donors do the most good per dollar, according to their recent evaluator investigations. Our other supported programs are those that align with our charitable purpose — they are working on a high-impact problem and take a reasonably promising approach (based on publicly-available information).
At Giving What We Can, we focus on the effectiveness of an organisation's work -- what the organisation is actually doing and whether their programs are making a big difference. Some others in the charity recommendation space focus instead on the ratio of admin costs to program spending, part of what we’ve termed the “overhead myth.” See why overhead isn’t the full story and learn more about our approach to charity evaluation.